 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Near midair collision between an light transport responding to a TCASII RA and an air carrier climbing in response to ATC clearance. TCASII resolution directed a climb rather than a descent which would have more effectively removed the conflict.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 342504 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199607 |
| Day | Tue |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801 To 2400 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | atc facility : cfb |
| State Reference | NY |
| Altitude | msl bound lower : 16000 msl bound upper : 17800 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Night |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Commercial Fixed Wing |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | cruise other |
| Route In Use | enroute airway : zny |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Commercial Fixed Wing |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | climbout : intermediate altitude |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : commercial pilot : instrument |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 120 flight time total : 4900 flight time type : 3300 |
| ASRS Report | 342504 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | conflict : nmac other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | flight crew : took evasive action |
| Consequence | Other |
| Miss Distance | horizontal : 400 vertical : 100 |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
| Situations | |
| ATC Facility | procedure or policy : unspecified |
Narrative:
Air carrier Y flight was at our 2 O'clock and 10 mi. ATC called traffic to both of us. We both answered, 'aircraft in sight.' flight XXX was at 15000 ft. ATC gave flight XXX a visual climb to higher altitude. Flight XXX asked what our heading was. It took a min or so for ATC to answer '310 degrees.' about 2 mi separation, I could tell we were on an intercept course. I started to look at the TCASII to see his altitude because he looked to be climbing. At about the same time the TCASII called 'traffic, traffic.' almost immediately, it changed to 'climb, climb.' my first thought was to descend since flight air carrier Y was climbing but since I had no way of knowing if he would stop his climb if he had TCASII, I followed the TCASII and started a climb. The TCASII was indicating roughly a 2000-3000 FPM climb. As I rotated through about 15 degree pitch-up I started a right turn to pass behind flight air carrier Y. During this time the TCASII called 'increase climb, increase climb,' and indicated approximately a 3500-4000 FPM climb. As I got to about 30 degrees of bank the TCASII changed to 'descend, descend,' followed soon after by 'clear of conflict.' during the maneuver I reached 20-25 degree pitch up, 3000-3500 FPM climb, 30-40 degree bank. We climbed to 17800 ft before leveling and returning to 16000 ft. While I understand ATC was within their rights to issue the visual climb to flight air carrier Y, I feel the rule is dangerous because it is nearly impossible to judge an aircraft's direction at night and the ability to judge separation is extremely impaired at night. (Note: flight air carrier Y had to ask our heading.) I think these factors directly led to flight air carrier Y starting an ill advised climb right into our flight path.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: NMAC BTWN AN LTT RESPONDING TO A TCASII RA AND AN ACR CLBING IN RESPONSE TO ATC CLRNC. TCASII RESOLUTION DIRECTED A CLB RATHER THAN A DSCNT WHICH WOULD HAVE MORE EFFECTIVELY REMOVED THE CONFLICT.
Narrative: ACR Y FLT WAS AT OUR 2 O'CLOCK AND 10 MI. ATC CALLED TFC TO BOTH OF US. WE BOTH ANSWERED, 'ACFT IN SIGHT.' FLT XXX WAS AT 15000 FT. ATC GAVE FLT XXX A VISUAL CLB TO HIGHER ALT. FLT XXX ASKED WHAT OUR HDG WAS. IT TOOK A MIN OR SO FOR ATC TO ANSWER '310 DEGS.' ABOUT 2 MI SEPARATION, I COULD TELL WE WERE ON AN INTERCEPT COURSE. I STARTED TO LOOK AT THE TCASII TO SEE HIS ALT BECAUSE HE LOOKED TO BE CLBING. AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME THE TCASII CALLED 'TFC, TFC.' ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, IT CHANGED TO 'CLB, CLB.' MY FIRST THOUGHT WAS TO DSND SINCE FLT ACR Y WAS CLBING BUT SINCE I HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING IF HE WOULD STOP HIS CLB IF HE HAD TCASII, I FOLLOWED THE TCASII AND STARTED A CLB. THE TCASII WAS INDICATING ROUGHLY A 2000-3000 FPM CLB. AS I ROTATED THROUGH ABOUT 15 DEG PITCH-UP I STARTED A R TURN TO PASS BEHIND FLT ACR Y. DURING THIS TIME THE TCASII CALLED 'INCREASE CLB, INCREASE CLB,' AND INDICATED APPROX A 3500-4000 FPM CLB. AS I GOT TO ABOUT 30 DEGS OF BANK THE TCASII CHANGED TO 'DSND, DSND,' FOLLOWED SOON AFTER BY 'CLR OF CONFLICT.' DURING THE MANEUVER I REACHED 20-25 DEG PITCH UP, 3000-3500 FPM CLB, 30-40 DEG BANK. WE CLBED TO 17800 FT BEFORE LEVELING AND RETURNING TO 16000 FT. WHILE I UNDERSTAND ATC WAS WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TO ISSUE THE VISUAL CLB TO FLT ACR Y, I FEEL THE RULE IS DANGEROUS BECAUSE IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO JUDGE AN ACFT'S DIRECTION AT NIGHT AND THE ABILITY TO JUDGE SEPARATION IS EXTREMELY IMPAIRED AT NIGHT. (NOTE: FLT ACR Y HAD TO ASK OUR HDG.) I THINK THESE FACTORS DIRECTLY LED TO FLT ACR Y STARTING AN ILL ADVISED CLB RIGHT INTO OUR FLT PATH.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.